|
(b)(4).Investigation - evaluation: a review of the complaint history, device history record, instructions for use (ifu), specifications, quality control and visual inspection was conducted during the investigation.The device is shipped with an instruction for use (ifu) that describes the intended use, specific items are addressed such as: "complications of ureteral stent placement are documented.Use of this device should be based upon consideration of risk-benefit factors as they apply to your patient.Informed consent should be obtained to maximize patient compliance with follow-up procedures.", "improper handling can seriously weaken the stent.Acute bending or overstressing during placement may result in subsequent separation of the stent at the point of stress after a prolonged indwelling period.Angulation of the wire guide or stent should be avoided.¿ also, it states ¿do not force components during removal or replacement.Carefully remove the components if any resistance is encountered.¿ the complaint device was not returned therefore, no physical examinations could be performed; however, a document based investigation evaluation was performed.There is no evidence to suggest the product was not made to specifications.Review of device history record shows no nonconforming events which could contribute to this failure mode.It should be noted there were no other reported complaints for this lot number.Device failure analysis: a visual examination of photos noted two pieces were returned.A coil was returned measuring approximately 5 cm in length.A coil with body was returned measuring 13.4 cm and body from base of coil measured 9 cm in length.It is possible that user technique contributed to this event; however, based on the provided information a definitive root cause cannot be established or reported at this time.We will continue to monitor for similar complaints.Per the quality engineering risk assessment no further action is required.
|